feds’ preferred substitute for “withingroup”nscoring. First, the politicizednNational Academy of Sciences panelnthat in 1989 tried to invest GATEnrace-norming with a mantle of scientificnrespectability conceded that the performance-fairnsystem might be easier tondefend from reverse-discriminationncharges. That could be in no smallnpart, as Gottfredson remarks acerbically,nbecause of a “technical impenetrability”nthat “protects the pseudosciencenfrom easy unmasking.” Thensecond, and most important, tip-off isnthat Senator Teddy Kennedy’s LabornCommittee had quietly written thisnupside-down definition of “test fairness”ninto the legislative intent of then1990 Kennedy-Hawkins civil rights billnthat President Bush vetoed. Echoingnthe EEGG, the committee stated thatnan employment test, no matter hownunbiased and job-related it might be,ncould no longer be defended onngrounds of business necessity if itsncolor-blind use resulted in disproportionatenfailure rates for minorities.nThus, the stage would have been setnfor federal courts to determine thatnCongress intended the use of tests withnbuilt-in quotas. And that may yet comento pass in 1991 with President Bush’snability to sustain a second veto of a civilnrights act in grave doubt.nThe egalitarians have other optionsnif they are thwarted in the undergroundnrigging of test outcomes. Onenis to remove much of the cognitivenmaterial from tests—-a “dumbingdown”nprocess. It is worthy of note thatnthe old Professional and AdministrativenCareer Examinahon (PAGE), an intellectuallyndemanding test for entrancento the federal service, was trashed inn1982 after the lame-duck Garter administrationnsigned a consent decreenpromising to develop tests that wouldneliminate “adverse impact” on minorides.nSix new tests, given for the firstndme in June 1990, have less academicncontent than PACE and draw heavilynon subjective “biodata.” And, to bensure, another option is to abolish testingnaltogether, which may be the directionnfor a nadon that prizes egalitarianismnover excellence. A fine ThirdnWorld nation this is becoming.n— Robert G. HollandnAT THE UNIV. OF TEXAS, innanswer to criticism that he has turned anfreshman English composition classninto a one-sided debate on politicalncorrectness, English department chairmannJoseph Kruppa has made severalnstrongly worded replies. The concernsnof his most outspoken critic, ProfessornAlan Gribben, are “nonsense.”nGribben et al. are “people of badnintentions” who have been guilty ofn”misrepresentation and misinformation.”nThe “only person with a politicalnagenda is Gribben,” and the collegendean’s postponement of the classn(which was to have been taught in itsnrevised form last fall) made Kruppanfeel “sickened” and “disappointed.”nBarbara Harlow, an associate professornof English who also supports the revisedncourse, was even less temperate,ntelling the student paper, the DailynTexan, that “The army hasn’t beenncalled in to UT, and the Universitynhasn’t been closed, but we need tonrecognize that there are academicndeath squads operating on our campus.”nWhat is going on here is a fight overna change in a basic course in Englishncomposition. Though around 50 percentnof UT’s freshman test out ofnEnglish 306, 2,500 to 3,000 studentsnare required to take the course, whichnhas traditionally covered argument andnanalysis and English grammar. In thenpast 306’s teachers have had a choicenfrom among three readers, with thenfreedom to bring in outside works asnthey deem appropriate, and the writersncovered have ranged from Aristotle tonJonathan Swift to Jessica Mitford. An6-page research paper was the finalnassignment, and the purpose of thenclass was to prepare students for thenvariety of writing that would be requirednof them in other UT courses,nwhatever their eventual major.nCidng a need for focus and thenbeneficial “side effect” of sensitizingnstudents to their obligations towardnvarious minorities, the course as itnpresently stands (the curriculum hasnbeen revised at least three times sincenlast April) uses no textbook. Insteadnthere is a required packet of readingsnon “difference,” which is to say civilnrights issues, and a syllabus that thenteacher may not deviate from.nAmong the readings studied arenPeggy Mcintosh’s “White Privilegennnand Male Privilege,” Richard Scotch’sn”Disability as the Basis for a SocialnMovement: Advocacy and the Politicsnof Definition,” and Dennis and Harlow’snYale Law & Policy Review article,n”Gay Youth and the Right tonEducadon,” plus a number of courtncases.nThe original textbook, which overnthe summer was dropped in responsento the cridcism, was not an Englishnreadings book at all but a sociologynbook edited by Paula Rothenberg andnentitled Racism & Sexism: An IntegratednStudy. In her introduction tonthat book Rothenberg gives the followingndefinition for racism: “racism involvesnthe subordination of people ofncolor by white people. While an individualnperson of color may discriminatenagainst white people or even hatenthem, his or her behavior or attitudencannot be called racist. He or she maynbe considered prejudiced against whitesnand we may all agree that the personnacts unfaidy and unjustly, but racismnrequires something more than anger,nhatred or prejudice; at the very leastnit requires prejudice plus power.”nThough the book has since been withdrawnnby Chairman Kruppa and thenauthor of the new 306 syllabus, LowernDivision English Director Linda Brodkey,nRothenberg’s viewpoint surely reflectsntheir own.nHence the criticism. Alan Gribben,na full professor who has been at UTnsince 1974 and who has taught compositionnclasses, argues that Kruppa andnBrodkey have taken a course in whichn”the subject matter has never beennparticularly important,” because thenreal subject was English, and turned itn”upside down.” The focus of the classnis now not composition, but civil rights.nGribben questions the propriety ofnhaving faculty and graduate students innEnglish discussing complicated legalnissues. Furthermore, sociologicalnarticles and law decisions are proverbialnfor their bad style and lack of clarity.nGribben says with astonishment thatnthe departmental committee of six thatnoriginally okayed the revised coursen”was not able to show me any evidencenthat style had been a consideration innchoosing the reading.”nJohn Ruszkiewicz, an associate professornof English and another critic ofnthe new 306, points out that “thenwriting component of the course hasnMARCH 1991/9n